By MIKE TEAL
“Othello” restoration producer Michael Dawson continues his discussion with Wellesnet. In this part, he looks at the possibility of doing a restoration of “Chimes at Midnight”, complete with a remixed soundtrack and a stereo music score. He also discusses the long and ongoing effort to untangle the legal battles surrounding the rights to the film, and the film’s impending 50th anniversary, which happens to coincide with the 100th anniversary of Orson Welles’ birth.
Do you remember the 1990 showing of “Falstaff (Chimes at Midnight)” at the Woodstock Opera House? Beatrice Welles was the special guest and the two of you introduced the film.
Yes, they had just finished restoring the Opera House the year before and a four-week Welles film festival was held in the wake of that, and to also help promote the “Othello” restoration, which was just getting underway at the time. We were able to persuade Beatrice to show up for that event, as “Chimes” is her favorite of her father’s pictures, which is not surprising since she’s in it, playing a nine-year-old page. The people who she stayed with during the time she was there, Joseph and Val Gitlin, were in fact the same people who had orchestrated the fundraising needed to restore the Opera House.
The print they showed was the best I’ve seen projected, but even that print had some flaws.
That was actually a 16mm print that unfortunately had some grinding noises on the soundtrack. Because of all the legal wrangling that surrounds the film, it’s pretty rare to see the film in any kind of theater at all, much less to actually see a good print of it.
After the success of the “Othello” restoration, the next logical step was a “Chimes at Midnight” restoration. I had heard at the time that Beatrice and the Welles Estate were going to be working with Miramax and Harvey Weinstein for that one. You’ve said elsewhere that you think “Othello” would have made more money if Miramax had been the distributors.
Yes, we probably wouldn’t have had the situation where there were “too many cooks in the kitchen”, so to speak, although “Othello” – the theatrical release in combination with the video – did ultimately wind up making a healthy seven figures, which was pretty good for a 40-year-old black-and-white Shakespeare movie. Of course, if Miramax had been the distributors, it probably would have made two or three times that.
At the time, because of the first newspaper accounts of the “Chimes” restoration that I read, I thought that if Beatrice was aligned with Miramax – and your restoration appeared to be going full steam – then a re-release of the film was imminent. But then we began hearing about all these people in Europe, like the Piedra and Saltzman Estates. It was a situation like “The Other Side of the Wind,” where you hear things that get your hopes up, and then those hopes get dashed.
Oh absolutely. There were a lot of mistaken assumptions about who owned what. Now about the relationship between the Welles Estate and Miramax, I think that was an association that was assumed because we had done “Othello” with Beatrice, and were also discussing “Chimes” with Mirimax.
No. As it turns out, Welles sold all rights to “Chimes” way back in the 1960s, as stated in a French contract. There’s a document that he registered releasing all his rights in perpetuity and saying that he had received all monies as part of that release.
I think the idea that “Chimes” belonged to Beatrice may have been her thinking, based on the influence of Thomas White, acting as her representative, who was dubious of that old contract when he was sent a copy of it, even though it came straight from the French registry. In that same document Welles released all of his “authorship” rights as well.
What’s the difference?
It’s a nuance under French law, and there is some question as to whether an author can actually release all of his authorship rights, so I’m not sure that nuance is even supportable. But Welles also stated in that contract that he had received all the money from the film that he was entitled to receive, based on this particular transaction.
I wonder why he would do that, since he said that “Chimes” was his favorite film?
Money. He was on to financing his next project. In hindsight, he clearly shouldn’t have done it, but he probably still felt it was his movie from an artistic standpoint, in that it was purely his artistic vision. It certainly wasn’t prudent from a business point of view, but he may not have cared, or perhaps his main priority was just to get the film
completed.
in their early days. Harvey’s career has since left Schlossberg’s in the dust, but at the time, losing “Othello” reportedly caused Weinstein to read the riot act to his staff at breakfast one morning.
The problem with Miramax obtaining the distribution rights to “Chimes” was twofold. One, the company at that time was in the process of being bought by Disney, which meant that corporate protocols were more restrictive; and“Chimes” was not a film that could be acquired hurriedly.
Secondly, one of the main underlings to Weinstein at the time frankly did not like the film, calling it a “pastiche” in one of our conference calls. Because he knew that Harvey wanted “Chimes”, this underling explained all the legal problems surrounding the film to him in such a way so as to make sure that Harvey would want to walk away from it. It’s too bad we couldn’t have just leapfrogged over this underling and gone right to Harvey. Based on a long fax I once received from him, I think we probably could have pounded out a good distribution deal in a matter of hours, and the restored film would have been released a long time ago. When I first began working on this project I had no kids. Now I’ve got a 13-year-old.
A few years ago there was a fundraiser for the “Chimes” project on the North Side of Chicago. I bought a ticket but couldn’t attend.
That was actually a fundraiser for the Prop Theatre. We had done some preliminary work on the print. One of the things that we had to do was to come up with a restoration budget, so in the process we did some work on it in terms of timing and shifting some sync, and also removing a lot of noise from the soundtrack. We showed it on four consecutive nights, and all four nights were completely sold out. Afterwards I had people tell me it was the best they had ever seen the film look or sound. We were using elements copied straight from film’s 1st generation master dupe negative.
That’s great that those high-quality elements still exist, just like “Othello.”
Yes, and in terms of the soundtrack the point of departure is much better then it was on “Othello”. “Chimes” was not nearly as overmodulated as the earler film, and the music score – again by Alberto Lavaginino – was originally recorded incidentally in stereo so there would be no need to re-record it.
There is also some visual artifact reduction involved, but it’s mainly just a matter of equalizing the audio stem tracks and shifting the soundtrack four frames, and 40 percent of the film would be synced perfectly. We may polish and remix the music score as well, using the same sound ratio where it relates in terms of volume mix because the dialogue and effects track uses the same ratio. So then we may take that ¼ inch music track and utilize it in the remix, so you will essentially have a stereo music score. We’re talking “A Hard Day’s Night” stereo, not a 5-channel, “Avatar”-mix. But it’s still stereo, and it sounds wonderful.
So with “Chimes” you’ve got three basic problems that are easily rectified. The original 2-track ¼-inch music score is beautiful, and if you equalize the effects track, that’s all you’ve got to do, and
it’ll sound great. I think everyone will be quite amazed by it. Some of those speeches in the film, such as Gielgud’s “Uneasy lies the head” soliloquy and Margret Rutherford’s speech at the end, are just wonderful when synched perfectly. And even the conversational stuff, like between Falstaff and Prince Hal, has a whole different effect, because now you’re no longer noticing any technical flaws, you’re simply concentrating on what’s being said, and how it’s being said. So much less work would be involved then “Othello” in getting it ready, and if we had the necessary funds and rights issues cleared up, we could complete the project in about three months’ time.
I read somewhere that you had a disagreement with Jonathan Rosenbaum about whether of not to add a sound effect of a horse neighing into the film?
It wasn’t a matter of adding a sound effect of a horse neighing. That sound effect was already there, and we want to make it loud enough so that you can hear it. There were many stem tracks that we listened to and thought, “Oh my God, the sound effects are there, but they’re recorded so low that you can’t hear them. What would happen is that they would do a common bass line instead of equalization, and anything that falls below that bass line would simply not be audible when recorded.
Sound effects are buried when it goes optical, because you’re not hearing a lot of incidental effects tracks. An equalized soundtrack means that, when you get to that little section, you raise the volume on it, so that it’s properly included in the mix. You’ve got one particular sound effect vs. another sound effect, and they’re disproportionate in terms of their audio balance. By equalized, I don’t mean that they’re equal volume, but they have to be brought up so that they can at least be heard as part of the background. Usually that’s not a real big issue, but in the case of a Welles film, it is.
As I mentioned in the “Othello” section, he would pick up “short ends”, where a crew has gotten down to the point where there’s so little film left in the camera, that it’s not worth using for another scene the rest of that day, and those “short ends” just get discarded. So he would take them and use them on “Othello” because he only needed 30 seconds, or 10 seconds, whatever it may be. And I’m sure he probably grabbed many leftover audio stems as well in order to be able to cut corners on both current and future projects. “Here’s a horse neighing, I need to get that recording.” And he would throw those in too. Problem is, if they don’t get boosted through equalization, they don’t get heard.
So it’s a matter of re-mixing the soundtrack to bring out all the nuances. Why would Welles use a bass line instead of equalization? Was equalization technology not available at the time?
It was, of course, available in Hollywood studios at the time, but Welles was an independent in Europe, mixing the film “on the run”, so to speak, and once again, when you’re making an independent film and have a low-budget situation, where you usually cut corners is in post-production sound. Equalization is usually rougher and not as intensely focused on.
So some of those stems were a casualty of the low budget?
Exactly. The film was not horribly underfinanced, but there were budgetary problems. With Welles, all the money shows up on the canvas with the incredible visuals – that’s where the masterpiece lies – but when you get into crunching for funds during post-production that almost invariably winds up being manifested in post-production sound.
You’ve said elsewhere that you thought that Welles was not a formalist, but he was a grammatist. What did you mean?
The difference is that a formalist thinks that things always need to be done in a set way according to film basics. Welles was creative and experimental enough to be able to function 180 degrees from that way of thinking, and he did it in such a bravado way that he was able to transcend and diminish that rule.
But I made that distinction in regard to lip synch, another of the film’s flaws. Good lip synchronization, like a properly mixed soundtrack, is basic film grammar, and the idea that Welles didn’t care about it, or was willing to sacrifice it for the sake of an impassioned line reading; there’s no sensible or scholarly basis for that argument. I understand the argument that some Welles scholars present of him wanting to get just the right line reading, but why would correcting the lip synchronization diminish that?
I agree. If you have lousy synchronization, it can undermine even the best line reading.
Well, it distracts the viewer. I’m sure many viewers can get so distracted by it that the concentration and focus on what’s being said – the power, the meaning, and the majesty – is diminished because they’re noticing some other flaw. As bad as someone talking in the theater two rows behind you.
That’s what happened to “Chimes At Midnight” when it was first released, wasn’t it?
Sure, it was one of the things that critics – especially in America – just jumped all over. Now, at that time, the toleration for non-synchronization was much higher in Europe, a cultural difference which also included the acceptance of dubbed films much more easily then we do here. In Italian and French films back then, synchronization was not all that important, and in those countries an English-language film like “Chimes” would be seen both dubbed and subtitled. That may be why some European Wellesian purists like Francois Thomas think technical flaws are aesthetic virtues, and part of Welles’s style simply because they happened in more then one film. Therefore, they become somehow part of a “pattern”, and part of the “auteur theory”. I don’t buy that, and again I think it goes back to many critics and scholars not really having a full understanding of production methods.
It would be especially nice if they could get the legal rights to “Chimes” straightened out in the next year or two, because 2015 marks not only the centennial of Orson Welles’ birth, but also the 50th anniversary of the film’s first theatrical release, which was in Spain. The English language version premiered in 1966, and the American release was in 1967, when it was re-titled as “Falstaff”. Wouldn’t 2015 be a perfect time for the restoration to play in theater? Or would 2016 be better?
It was my understanding that Cannes 1966 was it’s debut. There was just a little bit of extra shooting that was done in 1966, but it was released in 1966 in Cannes. But the film is frequently listed as a 1965 film, and if you’re trying to force a marketing tag, then I would stick with 2015, because you’ve also got the 100th anniversary.
According to Wiki, 2015 is the 50th anniversary of “Campanadas de Medianoche”, the Spanish-language equivalent, which
premiered in Spain just before Christmas of 1965, so it would have been a slightly different film if they did a little more shooting in 1966. Which reminds me of another recent issue we covered on Wellesnet: There was a recent article online asserting that there were actually six different versions of the film. I had always thought that there were only two that Welles had anything to do with, “Chimes” and “Campanadas”. Do you have any info on any other versions?
I’m a little skeptical of that. When you’re cutting and adjusting the film, you make prints to see how it plays, and then you go back and cut the film again. In those days you didn’t have the digital systems that allow you to look at things instantaneously, and even though you’re looking at it on a flatbed you still wanted to make a print just to see how it would play on the big screen. So adjustments are made and then you wind up with these prints that make people say “Hey, wait a minute. Here’s another version!”, not realizing you’re getting prints that were made just for the sake of editorial adjustments, as opposed to what actually went into distribution. So that may be a possible explanation. I don’t think it’s a question of multiple versions; there were just some slight editorial changes that were made. In those days you needed to see it on the big screen, so you got a print made.
Welles would dicker with stuff. He was like Kubrick that way. Both were making changes all the way up to the release date, which drove studios nuts. So the different “versions” are probably just six different prints used during the tinkering. But of course, I would have to screen those prints to find out for sure whether the level of editorial difference would qualify it as a different version or not.
Yes, it could be just a matter of personal opinion. Welles did cut the computer scene out of “The Trial” just before it was released, and cut the Murder of Richard II prologue from “Chimes”. What’s also interesting is that the Italian soundtrack CD for Chimes has music on it not included in the film, which makes me wonder if it’s music for scenes that were cut.
That’s possible, but in some cases it may just be that certain tracks were elongated tracks, where he would have an edited music score, but also a recorded score that was an in-depth playout of a particular piece of music, which he couldn’t use the totality of during the editing of the scene, but which he enjoyed having a played out version of anyway. That may be the case with the “Chimes” soundtrack where you’re hearing such an elongated version of a piece that it seems like a different piece, even though it was part of the same score that was written. I have the original 1/4-inch safety master used for that CD; it
was sent to us when we purchased the music synchronization rights.
A lot of those pieces, in their elongated state, would be worthy of being put into an orchestral suite and played in concert.
Absolutely. In fact, I think music could almost be considered as integral to Welles’ art as magic.
OK so we’ve established that a “Chimes” restoration would be relatively quick and easy to do.
Compared to Othello, yes.
It’s split between two estates, the Emiliano Piedra Estate, controlled by his daughter at this point, I believe, and the Harry Saltzman Estate, controlled by his widow, Adrianna. Piedra was the original producer, who wanted Welles to make a film of “Treasure Island” along with “Chimes”. That never happened, and somewhere along the line, Piedra went broke, so Saltzman was brought in as co-owner and distributor of the film. No, you absolutely shouldn’t do films this way, but as I mentioned, in hindsight I think it came out of a motivation and desperation to just get the film done.
There does seem to be a certain amount of mystery as to why Welles had to pull Saltzman into the picture. Welles’ assistant director Jess Franco has said in interviews that Welles wildly underestimated the budgetary needs, and one story I heard was that when Franco was sent out to get end money, Saltzman agreed to provide the $750,000 needed in exchange for his name going before the title. When Welles found out about this, he was so furious that he took Franco’s name off the credits. I’ve heard another version of the story where Welles actually tried to choke Franco.
The part about the credit sounds logical. Sometimes people will run for the hills to avoid credit if a project stinks, but an Orson Welles film is so prestigious that it’s the exact opposite. I found out several times the hard way on “Othello” that credit can be more important then money. Even the doorman wants credit on an Orson Welles film.
But Franco also deserved to be fired for the copyright deal he made with Saltzman, which was that copyright would be shared 50-50 between Saltzman and Emiliano Piedro, but Saltzman would get distribution rights throughout the world, except for Spain, Portugal, and all the Spanish-speaking territories, and those distribution rights would be in perpetuity. The problem with that is that, even when you have the right to license the film from the copyright owner, you still have this other entity to have to deal with in terms of distribution rights.
The problem with both parties sharing copyright is that, under US law, in order to copy something or go distribution on it, you only need permission from one of the copyright owners. What’s interesting here is that I’m pretty sure you can own only 1 percent of a copyright and you’re still a copyright owner. In terms of legality, of course, you only want one copyright owner when you’re doing a deal. Otherwise, say you have a falling out with a partner, then you’re wrangling over it. In the case of “Chimes” there are two registered copyrights, and unfortunately no distributor will touch that. It spooks them.
But here’s where things get even more complicated. Harry Saltzman had originally wanted $50,000 for his North American rights to the film, and for those rights there was actually a 10 percent down payment which had been placed by someone else. That’s where there’s a real perkhole here; that down payment made toward the purchase of Saltzman’s rights as they existed prior to that 2002 French court ruling. And that third party involvement has created a paper trail, not only under U.S. law, but under French law as well. So there may have to be an additional ruling in that regard. To protect ourselves, we purchased the music synchronization performance rights, which means that if “Chimes” is released in the United States, they have to get our permission.
Unless they want to release it with a different music score.
At the risk of making things even more confusing, there’s was also a 1992 article, around the time of the “Othello” release that indicates that Julian Schlossberg was in the final stages of aquiring the rights for “Chimes” from the Piedras.
Schlossberg had been talking with Bertrand Bagge who represents the Piedras,but then he tried to deal with Saltzman’s American distributor Arthur Cantor to gain control of the original negative elements for the film. That’s where a group of investors, which I happened to be a part of, stepped in to stop it. Not necessarily to do something nefarious against Schlossberg, it’s just that we did not want him to be
the distributor of “Chimes”, after all the problems that had been caused on “Othello”. Plus we were still hoping for a deal with Harvey Weinstein and Miramax.
So we obtained those elements from Arthur Cantor ourselves, by making a better offer. Three new 35mm release prints had already been made from those elements, and one of them was shown at the 1989 NYU symposium on Welles, which Oja Kodar attended. That print was extraordinary, and I’m still in possession of it.
Schlossberg and Beatrice were closely allied at the time, weren’t they? What was her reaction when you put him out of the picture?
It’s true she had sought him out to pursue that deal, but once we had gotten into the French Registry and seen the document of Welles giving up his rights to the film, Schlossberg probably realized that he and Beatrice couldn’t help each other out in that regard. In fact, I don’t believe “Chimes” was even listed in the catalogue of
the Orson Welles Estate. Welles was no doubt conscious of that document when he made up his will. I can’t remember exactly who he signed it away to, but it’s definitely a declaration of release.
I probably shouldn’t say anymore about where the legal rights stand right now, because there may be some delicate negotiations taking place this summer. Suffice it to say that this whole legal Rubik’s Cube is a real interesting case study in entertainment law. I’ve often thought of doing a documentary on it and selling it, or doing it as a lecture, or making a CD-rom for law schools.
It would also make a great extra on a Chimes DVD. It’s almost as big a mess as “The Other Side of the Wind.”
But as I said, there’s hope that some developments this summer could resolve many things, with the possible assistance of a high-ranking member of the French judicial system. We’re also dealing with a potential distributor who’s expressed interest and is prepared to make some blanket offers beyond what our original arrangements were in order to get a deal done.
So keep your fingers crossed.
Coming Soon: Michael Dawson interview Part 3: Woodstock Celebrates and Citizen Welles
__________
Post your comments on the Wellesnet Message Board.